|
|
maxm said...
frant said...
Gorgo I feel sorry for you. I just got back from the bank after depositing a cheque. Don't rec've many of those now as it all comes in via netbank ie the netbank system works fine without the billions to be wasted on the NBN. But you know what! The bank teller was a pretty girl with a nice smile that she flashed at me. That makes me feel much better than looking at any of Doggies favourite internet images! Which I can download just fine on the current internet system. And that little old lady that they are going to check blood pressure on remotely via the internet. Her blood pressure would probably be much lower if she could just share a cuppa with the district nurse. Now I like to spend time with people that I like. I just think that time spent with them is better if we actually enjoy the time we are not with them. That is what human contact means.
Spend the money on something that will make a real difference to our lives not just a few who might benefit from fast internet speeds.
The problem frant is that there'll always be other good and worthwhile things to spend the money on. For example, if we always thought that way then the Snowy Mountains project would never have been built.
Other thing is that we can't really know what the benefits of the NBN will be until the NBN is built and available. You're only thinking in terms of todays limited technology. But think back 20 years... did you really consider that you'd be downloading entire movies? I know I didn't. It was all dialup and a 1200 baud modem was pretty darn good. Now whole industries exist based on the interweb.
For instance my mate has a company which provides computer and internet support. He runs it from Sydney but has customers through Asia. He employs people. He brings dollars into the country. And none of it would exist if broadband wasn't available.
Or another example (I heard this one during the election)... back in the days when electricity generation was in its infancy, they thought wiring up the streets was a good idea just so they could provide street lighting. That's it. No ideas about running wires into people's houses. Now look what we do with it.
Or that little old lady who needs her blood pressure checked. Your example of her being better off if she had human contact... yes, that's fine IF she lives somewhere where it's easy to go down the road and get that done. What if she lives out in the middle of nowhere? Quite a few of our farmers live that way. Their kids get schooled via radio. Their doctoring happens in when a doctor can fly in. Many of these farmers run biggish businesses. Could it be a good idea to give them good internet access to the rest of the world so they have better access markets as well as get their families better health and their kids a better education than currently? I think it could.
I'll have another go but I really don't think we are going to reach a consensus on this one.
1/ The Snowy Scheme is the type of real infrastructure that I would build instead of wasting money on the NBN. Or we could build better roads or a high speed rail network or more hospitals.
2/ I don't download movies. I actually enjoy the experience of dressing up on Saturday night and driving into town to see a movie at a cinema.
3/ Of course your mates company that supplies internet support wouldn't exist without the internet. Huh! We wouldn't have sewerage disposal problems if people didn't sh*** either. But I run a manufacturing company that 10 years ago had a huge export market, without real infrastructure and trained people we have lost all of that market to the Chinese... never to be recovered. China is investing in railways not an NBN.
4/ As I said I don't have 3 phase power or natural gas running outside my property. So I can't run my business from home, not that I would want to as I actually enjoy getting out amongst real people. And by the way could you ask them to provide street lighting as we don't have that either.
5/ And my point about the little old lady is that she does live out in the middle of nowhere. Can't we spend the money to make sure that the district nurse can see her or should she be happy to watch a movie. And not a single grain of that farmers wheat is going to move down the NBN fibre optic cable.
As I said earlier we presently have satisfactory broadband service provided by flow of electrons down a wire. We simply cannot afford the photons down a light tube.
|
|
|
Gizmo said...
Could you afford ALL of these paid services? All of those cost $$$$ either ongoing costs or the equipment.
They grow wheat not money trees (not enough rain for those) and without wheat you won't get your wheat bix or toast for brekkie, donuts for morning tea or subway for lunch.
Broadband would make your life easier BUT a sealed road for them could mean the difference between life and death.
All I'm saying broadband will be great for a minority but basic infrastructure is good for ALL Australians
Just as information, the Imparja service is a once off fee for the decoder card ($120?) and the set top box. After that its free.
Broadband in the bush is heavily subsidized now, and they should have access to relatively cheap internet whether its satellite or NextG.
Are these real issues they care about, or just an example of what you think is the case?
Don't get me wrong, but I think this country needs a decent rail service to replace a lot of the long haul truck freight, amongst other things. Why can't we have both?
|
|
|
Gizmo said...
Perhaps an alternate thought for a NBN is leave it up to the commercial telcos to install the best equipment and infrastructure to suit them and their customers needs and expand the system in ALL forms of delivery (cable, fibre,wireless 3G,4G etc.). And let natural commercial decisions and rivalry drive the the network, and get the Gov. to chip in a bit to help the isolated areas of Australia with tax relief for those in need.
That is exactly the situation as it now stands. Exactly.
Telcos will only install new infrastructure where it suits them to make a decent profit. This is why broadband speeds are much faster in high density areas. The Telcos won't install a decent service for a house 13kms from what is already a small user base.
If it wasn't for the existing subsidies, there would be next to no broadband outside metro areas. If you went further and applied this logic to phone lines, people in the bush wouldn't have those either, or would be paying thousands of dollars for their phone line.
Just as another bit of useless information, the government provides a fund called the Universal Services Obligation, which all Telcos contribute to, and the ones that provide services to rural areas and (uneconomic) public services get paid a subsidy from. Without this, there would be no payphones and no phone lines in rural areas.
|
|
|
cisco said...
Thanks for that Carantoc. Very much to the point.
ie:- What will the real benefits of the NBN be to those who will be paying to build it and once it is built what will it cost EXTRA to take advantage of the alleged benefits??
Nah, I think a few people refuted these points.
Why didn't you just say "I don't like the idea of the NBN and I think the money could be better spent. Who agrees with me?"? There's no harm in stating your point of view.
I think the NBN is a fantastic idea and needs to be built. There are hundreds of boat people turning up every day to apply for these jobs, so we can roll it out on record time!
|
|
|
Yes these are REAL issues but have been resolved as they have sold up the property and moving to the regional centre to retire. BUT the new owners of the farm have these problems at the moment, its NOT a hypothetical.
All I'm saying is broadband to every home is just not practical, realistic or needed money spent on more BASIC infrastructure in Australia may be a wiser investment.
But even in the city aren't we a mobile society with all sorts of mobile gadgets needing Internet connections maybe a wireless / RF system and for that matter mixed delivery system would be better  I doubt if we can solve these problems on a forum but just be aware that other people in Australia have needs and wants that may be different from yours. |
|
|
on the fibre optic part of this thread.
neither liberal or labor is saying they are going to connect fibre to every house in australia. they are talking broadband.
that is any infrustructure with a wide band. ie. cable, fibre, satelite, wireless.
i'm not sure why the media is fixated on the use of fibre. fibre would never be suitable for rural locations. both wireless and satelite is the only way to go.
as far as i am aware no-one is suggesting runniong a fibre cable 13 km up a dirt road to service one residence.
|
|
|
Gizmo said...
I doubt if we can solve these problems on a forum but just be aware that other people in Australia have needs and wants that may be different from yours.
Yep, can completely understand that.
I'm another one that can work from home without any hassle thanks to good broadband coverage. There's nothing I can do in the office that I couldn't do from home except maybe answer the phone on my desk (but I do know if it's ringing ... soon I should be able to intercept the call and redirect it to my home). The only reason for driving 50 minutes to the office is because my manager insists on seeing my smiling face. When I drive in I do it on perfectly good bitumen roads, highways and freeways. No potholes and certainly no dirt.
So *I* don't really need an NBN any more than I need better roads.
I guess in part I've been swayed by Bob Katter and the other independents who, even before the election, were all nominating the NBN as one of the highest priority needs for their region. Mostly though I'm swayed by my own experience which tells me that knowledge based industries is where the growth is. That where future new jobs will be. And if we want to be on the leading edge of that then we need world class infrastructure at least as good as our competitors have otherwise they'll get the business not us.
|
|
|
Gestalt said...
on the fibre optic part of this thread.
neither liberal or labor is saying they are going to connect fibre to every house in australia. they are talking broadband.
that is any infrustructure with a wide band. ie. cable, fibre, satelite, wireless.
i'm not sure why the media is fixated on the use of fibre. fibre would never be suitable for rural locations. both wireless and satelite is the only way to go.
as far as i am aware no-one is suggesting runniong a fibre cable 13 km up a dirt road to service one residence.
Is there any house in Australia that is not currently internet capable with the present mix of cable, fibre, satelite and wireless. You know that you can carry a sat phone and phone home from the top of Everest. Just as you could watch Jessica Watson or the round the world racers deep in the Southern Ocean. I can hook up to the internet with my wireless dongle from just about anywhere within 10k's of the S.E. Australian Seaboard.
Give us a break on the need for an NBN billion dollar spend.
|
|
|
|
maxm said...
Gizmo said...
I doubt if we can solve these problems on a forum but just be aware that other people in Australia have needs and wants that may be different from yours.
Yep, can completely understand that.
I'm another one that can work from home without any hassle thanks to good broadband coverage. There's nothing I can do in the office that I couldn't do from home except maybe answer the phone on my desk (but I do know if it's ringing ... soon I should be able to intercept the call and redirect it to my home). The only reason for driving 50 minutes to the office is because my manager insists on seeing my smiling face. When I drive in I do it on perfectly good bitumen roads, highways and freeways. No potholes and certainly no dirt.
So *I* don't really need an NBN any more than I need better roads.
I guess in part I've been swayed by Bob Katter and the other independents who, even before the election, were all nominating the NBN as one of the highest priority needs for their region. Mostly though I'm swayed by my own experience which tells me that knowledge based industries is where the growth is. That where future new jobs will be. And if we want to be on the leading edge of that then we need world class infrastructure at least as good as our competitors have otherwise they'll get the business not us.
Now tell me Maxm just how and why it is that just about all of the computer software industry and call centres are located in India right now. It is because of the power of the WWW. Your job will be at increased risk as a result of this new connectivity. Some Indian IT expert will be prepared to do you in for a fraction of the dollars that you cost the boss. Same as us in the manufacturing industry, these transportable jobs will go to where the wage costs are lowest.
|
|
|
yes, all places can actually get broadband. but look at the cost versus data amounts for satelite. it's massive. then add the cost of the equipment. our rural business and communities are massively dissadvantaged. so people stay on dial up as that's all they can afford. sometimes they have no choice and have to go satelite.
i'm in favour of the a better broadband service in oz. i thinks it's critical. all of the parties are as well. everyone should have cost effective access to min adsl2+.
business need multiple lines at adsl2+ depending on the amount of staff and type of business.
anyways, i was pointing out that both major parties have a national broadband policy.
the libs are against the NBN policy detail. not the concept of better national coverage.
and labor is saying the libs policy doesn't take us far enough forward.
edit* when the independants were first interviewed on abc most of them had to travel to major regional centres to be able to access the communications needed. they didn't have a fast enough net access in their area to be able to stream a camera.
|
|
|
Gestalt said...
yes, all places can actually get broadband. but look at the cost versus data amounts for satelite. it's massive. then add the cost of the equipment. our rural business and communities are massively dissadvantaged. so people stay on dial up as that's all they can afford. sometimes they have no choice and have to go satelite.
i'm in favour of the a better broadband service in oz. i thinks it's critical. all of the parties are as well. everyone should have cost effective access to min adsl2+.
business need multiple lines at adsl2+ depending on the amount of staff and type of business.
anyways, i was pointing out that both major parties have a national broadband policy.
the libs are against the NBN policy detail. not the concept of better national coverage.
and labor is saying the libs policy doesn't take us far enough forward.
edit* when the independants were first interviewed on abc most of them had to travel to major regional centres to be able to access the communications needed. they didn't have a fast enough net access in their area to be able to stream a camera.
Looks like we are all coming to an agreement that it all hinges on a cost benefit analysis. Its just where we sit on that ledger that differs.
Interestingly though its odd how the independents all travelled to Canberra for face to face meetings with Gillard Abbott et al. Thats how we do things in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
frant said...
Interestingly though its odd how the independents all travelled to Canberra for face to face meetings with Gillard Abbott et al. Thats how we do things in the end.
Actually, that's becoming increasingly rare. Pollies do it because they don't pay the bill. In business, face to face meetings are becoming less common. I've had many meetings and long working relationships with many people I've never met. You, frant, spend countless hours debating issues such as the pluses and minuses of the NBN here in a forum with people whos names you don't even know, never mind never met. Can there be a better example of just how optional face-to-face is becoming?
As for offshoring work... yep, I'm a bit of an expert there, believe me. My company has been actively moving work to China and India for many years and continues to do so. Do you know what we're finding in India (for instance)? It's a short-term gain. They are having a LOT of trouble hiring properly qualified and experienced people. The ones they can hire are fresh out of school and have bugger all experience. When we do hire one of those, they stick around for a year or so and then leave to go to higher paying jobs in India. Wages for good, experienced people are rising rapidly over there - so how long will India have that price advantage?
In fact globally, Australia is one of the few growth centres for us largely because we can tap into our regional growth. We can support the region from Australia but only if there is good communications infrastructure in place. Sure, some of the work/jobs/dollars that comes out of that growth does flow on to China and India. But not all of it. Thing is that 30 years ago when I started, IT jobs were rare. A few thousand Australia wide. Now there'd be hundreds of thousands of people with those jobs even despite some work going overseas.
And finally, (sorry, didn't mean this to turn into a rant)...
You don't say how fixing up the road to Gizmo's in-laws farm benefits the country. I'm sure it benefits them personally but how does it increase their farm productivity? Are they going to be able to grow more wheat/raise more cattle/etc?? Will their children be able to get jobs on that one farm? What about their kids? I don't disagree with you that it's worth doing, especially a decent rail network. But I just can't see that it adds a huge amount to what we've got already whereas the NBN I think does have that potential.
|
|
|
Gizmo said...
Lets all agree to shake on it shall we.
|
|
|
FormulaNova said...
cisco said...
Thanks for that Carantoc. Very much to the point.
ie:- What will the real benefits of the NBN be to those who will be paying to build it and once it is built what will it cost EXTRA to take advantage of the alleged benefits??
Nah, I think a few people refuted these points.
Why didn't you just say "I don't like the idea of the NBN and I think the money could be better spent. Who agrees with me?"? There's no harm in stating your point of view.
I think the NBN is a fantastic idea and needs to be built. There are hundreds of boat people turning up every day to apply for these jobs, so we can roll it out on record time!
I didn't say that because that is not what I was thinking. 
I am what you might call mid to low tech so when I got the email I started thinking "Is this going to be another fiasco or white elephant like the home insulation/solar subsidy/ school halls programs seem to be?" 
It was a genuine question about a topic upon which I and surely many other forumites have limited understanding.
There are many on the forum who are right up there with the IT and this is reflected in the constructive debate that has happened in this thread.
Muchos gracias compadres!! 
If the NBN is good for the country overall, I am all for it. When I see the politicians talking about it I think "These jokers don't know anything more about this than I do." and that REALLY worries me. 
Tony Abbott has to be given credit for saying to the journos "If this is going to be a technical question, I am not going to be able to answer it." or words to that effect.
All sides of politics agree that Australia needs higher speed and better coverage of the internet. I don't really see anybody here argeuing against that.
What is being argued is it's priority compared to other vital infrastructure, which kind of technology should be used to achieve it and ensuring it is not just the top end of the street that gets the benefit of it.
All good in this thread too!! 
|
|
|
|
if u want broadcast 3D without glasses u'll need fiber to the home.
|
|
|
frant said...
Gizmo said...
Lets all agree to shake on it shall we.
OK.
|
|
|
+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
i still think all this money could have been better spent on something much more important....like a giant 5km2 dam on top of mt tamborine that works awesomely in any wind direction, has heated water, giant flood lights and a wave making machine
|
|
|
maxm said...
You don't say how fixing up the road to Gizmo's in-laws farm benefits the country. I'm sure it benefits them personally but how does it increase their farm productivity? Are they going to be able to grow more wheat/raise more cattle/etc?? Will their children be able to get jobs on that one farm? What about their kids? I don't disagree with you that it's worth doing, especially a decent rail network. But I just can't see that it adds a huge amount to what we've got already whereas the NBN I think does have that potential.
At the very least they will be able to down load the latest season of their favourite flavour of CSI before it hits our shores.
|
|
|
To get back to the original poster's question, apparently that bit of text was first posted on Andrew Bolt's blog. The guy is a 1st rate douchebag (think talkback radio Alan Jones type but in press) and I wouldn't trust anything on his blog.
|
|
